Skip to comments.See the Responses From Obama Supporters When Asked Why the Govít Should Pay for Contraception
Posted on 08/09/2012 12:38:45 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
From revealingpolitics.com comes these outrageous responses from Obama supporters outside the joint President Obama-Sandra Fluke campaign event in Denver on Wednesday.
The interviewees were all dead-set on the government not having any place in the bedroom. But following that up with why then should the government pay for the contraception used in the bedroom, they seemed to falter.
The government has no place in our bedroom? interviewer Caleb Bonham asked one woman.
No, she asserted.
So youre in support of contraception, government-funded contraception why do you believe the government should pay for what goes on inside your bedroom?
The woman paused before answering, Thats a very good question.
And then there was the interviewee who declared she was like, all for abortion, all for birth control.
So, you dont think the government should be involved in what goes on inside the bedroom, correct? Bonham repeated.
Oh exactly, oh not even close, no, she replied.
So then why do you expect the government to pay for what goes on inside the bedroom?
Another pause. Because
The woman in the next clip at least had an answer to that, stating, if we had that more readily available then we wouldnt have people out here starving, wouldnt have
So contraception solves hunger? Bonham asked.
Well I believe it has a big part in it, I really do, she said.
Watch the video below:
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
And their vote may count more than yours. ('cause some vote twice).
It's worse than that, they also reproduce.
Well, you can’t blame the government for staying out of their bedroom.
I wouldn’t go near their bedroom either, not for all the Tim Geitner funny money he can print.
So much stupid all in one place. It’s scary that people with so little critical thinking ability are engaged in the political process enough to go to rallies.
There is just no fixing stupid!
Excellent interview ... which just goes to show how voters make decisions based on news ‘sound bites’ without any reflection on their personal lives. This is why Obama can get away with a political ad accusing Romney of murdering a steel worker’s wife’s death. The majority of ignorant voters will not check the facts. If the ad says Romney’s actions resulted in that woman’s death, then it must be true.
If all the people who were for abortion were one we would have a less messed up world than we suffer from now.
I’m not for abortion, but in their case I would allow it.
This is stupid. Liberals obey their masters to get fed and have a place to live. If they are told the sky is polka dots and they are kangaroos, THEN THE SKY IS POLKA DOTS AN THEY ARE KANGAROOS.
Conservatives just don't GET it.
we are surrounded by idiots!
Alexander Hamilton was right, and Ben Franklin was wrong, in opposing UNIVERSAL suffrage. You should have to have at least a little “skin in the game” to hold the franchise. Eventually the have-nots will figure out that they can vote themselves more and more of the haves’ money through the public fisc. Then the game is over.
And don’t even get me started on the 19th Amendment. /jk
Isn't the job of a democrat 'ward heeler' to pass around the 'walking around money'? It's the Chicago way to get out the vote. What else you gonna do with a billion bucks?
I have supported qualifications for voting privilege for some time. As you undoubtedly know, the Founders qualified voters in the original 13 colonies to assure that only responsible citizens were a part of the leadership process. (Roman suffrage was qualified as well, during the days of their Republic). Since voting is a leadership function, it makes perfect sense to select voters who are capable of advancing the best interests of the Republic. The notion fell into disfavor because such factors as gender, religion, and race were originally used criteria. When the immorality of these factors was realized, the US embraced the French notion of egalitie and universal suffrage.
I would suggest disqualifying voters who have a history of mental illness, felony conviction, substance abuse, or who have been incapable of supporting themselves and their families. Of course, such ideas garner little support, even here on Free Republic.
How about the military and vets receiving pensions or disability payments? According to at least one on this site, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote @ the Fed level, because they ‘feed at the taxpayer trough’.
A pension, at least theoretically, has been earned through years of service. I contribute to my pension on a monthly basis, as does my employer (as part of my compensation). If I ever retire (which I doubt), I will live on the accrued value of the pension until it is depleted. But no one else will ever place additional funds in the pension should I exhaust those funds. So if I’m living on my money, that I saved over 40 years of work, I guess I’m still supporting myself, right?
I would make unfunded/underfunded pensions illegal. The idea that I will fund your pension after you retire with moneys taken by force from your children and their children is immoral and evil. If I can’t afford to fund your pension on a monthly basis while you work, how on earth will I be able to fund the pension plus thirty years of accrued interest after you retire? And this is the problem with social security as it now stands.
For those who were cheated by the government and promised a pension which is now unfunded/underfunded through no fault of their own, I would treat them for purposes of suffrage as if they were spending their own money, saved over 40 years. After all, they acted in good faith and did their part. I would treat social security retirees the same way. I would however, take a hard look at lifetime pensions paid to recipients with very short times of service. But I am mainly talking about disqualifying recipients of the 80 Federal programs which distribute Federal welfare benefits and not those who have retired.
Disability is a much simpler subject. If you’re talking of a combat veteran, injured in the line of duty, then he has earned the voting privilege for life even if completely supported by disability. For the other 9 million Americans who now receive Federal disability, they shouldn’t lead if they can’t contribute. No suffrage.
I certainly favor loss of voting rights for people who are wards of the state (welfare cases) for more than, say, a year. “If you’re living entirely off Daddy’s money, you don’t get to tell Daddy to do WITH his money.” But as you said, the required constitutional amendment would go nowhere.